UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
JAMES EDWARD MILLER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MIKE PIERCE; DAVID PENDRY; BUTCH
HOLLAND; TIM CHEEK; RONNIE PRICE,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 03-7534

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge.
(CA-99-50-5-MU)
Submitted: January 30, 2004
Decided: March 16, 2004
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part, by unpublished per

curiam opinion.

COUNSEL
James Edward Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Mason Thomas,
PATRICK, HARPER & DIXON, Hickory, North Carolina, for
Appellees.

MILLER v. PIERCE

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION
PER CURIAM:
James Edward Miller appeals the district courts order granting
summary judgment to the Defendants on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000)
complaint. The district courts grant of summary judgment is
reviewed de novo. Higgins v. E. I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 863
F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir. 1988). Summary judgment is appropriate
when there is no genuine issue of material fact, given the parties burdens of proof. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 247-49 (1986). In determining whether the moving
party has shown that there is no genuine issue of material fact, a court
must assess the factual evidence and all inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id. at 255;
Smith v. Va. Commonwealth Univ., 84 F.3d 672, 675 (4th Cir. 1996).
Miller claims that the Defendants violated his constitutional rights
when they removed Millers son from his custody. The Defendants
stated that they were acting pursuant to a court order, but never provided a copy of such an order. Miller provided a court order requiring
the child to be returned to his custody, for the two-week period in dispute. Therefore, whether the Defendants were acting pursuant to a
court order, or in contravention of one, is a genuine issue of material
fact. We conclude that, as to this claim, the district court erred in
granting summary judgment. We vacate that portion of the district
courts order and remand the action for further proceedings.
As to Millers remaining claims, we have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, as to those claims, we affirm for
the reasons stated by the district court. See Miller v. Pierce, No. CA99-50-5-MU (W.D.N.C. Sept. 16, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

MILLER v. PIERCE

AFFIRMED IN PART,
VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART